EPTthat being said....how common is this problem really? it sounds like what alot of people are getting at in this thread are ways to shorten games where an obnoxious T player is holding out. As long as you can get air..no complaints are viable imo.
Lifted Terrans and Stalemate - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
D3lta
United States93 Posts
that being said....how common is this problem really? it sounds like what alot of people are getting at in this thread are ways to shorten games where an obnoxious T player is holding out. As long as you can get air..no complaints are viable imo. | ||
|
Eiii
United States2566 Posts
There's completely nothing wrong with the terran's ability to lift and run their buildings. That's fine. The problem is that even if they have no possible way back into the game they can just remain there, floating around and trying to outlast their opponent. In nony's case, if he constantly scouted to ensure that the T hadn't landed anywhere-- which he did-- T has literally no way to win the game. If T moves to reestablish a base, he loses and protoss wins. In a game where both players are playing to win, that's the only possible outcome. | ||
|
shieldbreak
United States406 Posts
On May 08 2010 10:26 clik wrote: I don't know about giving Terran buildings gas however Blizzard could fix their maps to not have this issue. This seems to be the best way to resolve this issue. Give the others an opportunity to still win while not having to nerf Terran buildings in anyway. | ||
|
crate
United States2474 Posts
On May 10 2010 04:08 floor exercise wrote: Hello fellow poster. I am really not trying to single you out here, but posts like this are why tlnet is going to shit. There's a growing trend in making these really ignorant, hyperbolic posts like this that are essentially the equivalent of using the chewbacca defense to argue a point. There's nothing offensive about what you are saying, but it's so flat out retarded that not only does it not contribute to the discussion at hand, it can't really effectively be responded to because it's just so fucking dumb. I mean does anyone truly believe the ability to force stalemates is somehow related to race balance? Really, honestly? Do you even believe what your one line post is suggesting? Posts like this could basically be described as spam somewhat cleverly disguised as a post with actual contributory intent behind it. I mean one or two of these is fine, but it's like you refresh a new thread and it's 10 pages of comments like this. They are just so baseless and bad and make reading threads so difficult. The poster I'm responding to is talking about balance regarding stalemates if Zerg or Protoss are playing for the draw, they must actually spend resources and disrupt their build orders. Terrans can simply lift off pre-exisiting buildings that were going to be built in the first place, meaning they don't play for the draw but still have the ability to play for the draw. So I'm responding in kind. Why single me out and not the other guy? Is one-line spam somehow worse than multi-line spam? Also: Do you even believe what your one line post is suggesting? What is my post suggesting then? I don't know what you're referring to here, so humor me and let me know what's wrong with it? I don't really know what I think about T floating with regards to stalemates, so I'm not offering an opinion on that topic. | ||
|
eyefrag
United States13 Posts
http://www.youtube.com/v/d1MPe5hJZKE&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0 There are many ways to draw in both SCI and SCII. Just because a draw is somewhat more likely when facing a Terran player doesn't mean that we need to get rid of the mechanic. It's not like Terrans can auto-draw a game whenever they wish. They need to make you unable to produce air units, which is, in its own right, no easy feat. If anything, it adds strategic depth to the game, since you need to be careful not to lose all air units if you are going to base trade with a Terran. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On May 10 2010 05:19 shieldbreak wrote: This seems to be the best way to resolve this issue. Give the others an opportunity to still win while not having to nerf Terran buildings in anyway. And what if they don't have any units that can shoot up period? Clearly the issue wouldn't be solved. Also I don't think it is as hard to hide buildings on current BW maps as everyone makes it out to be. There are plenty of rocky parts that ground forces can't reach. | ||
Falling
Canada11381 Posts
On May 09 2010 17:33 TheYango wrote: So explain how altering the core game mechanic is a better choice than simply designing maps that accomodate, especially since there are plenty of advantages to be had in filling that space with useful terrain anyway? Or Blizzard could change their maps. If that would solve the problem, then I would be content with that. But as long as people are saying it isn't a problem, then we can't even agree that this is necessary. Or even if they didn't change their maps, but threw down a boundary around the land. Essentially if you float your building in the border for x amount of time you would lose the game anyways? Would a boundary be arbitrary? No more arbitrary then the square corners of the map. On May 10 2010 04:35 kickinhead wrote: Besides: Terran Buildings were able to lift in SCBW as well and noone complained about it, just because it's not an Issue in 99% of the games and in all the other games were the game goes to the point of total annihilation, the other player should've known that Terran can lift and fly away. That's why you don't basetrade against Terran etc. And if the Terran wins by killing your last building and you weren't able to because you had no air-unit's - well, you've lost fair and square. And if it's one of those 1 in 10'000 stalemate-situations and noone can really win - well, be the mannered one and leave... But the stalemate is much more likely in SCII (and therefore a problem) because of the faster speed of flying buildings and the unwalkable boundary on all the maps. | ||
HawaiianPig
Canada5155 Posts
On May 10 2010 05:23 eyefrag wrote: Those of you saying that Terrans should be unable to lift indefinitely, consider that this game would never have happened (and it's a good nail-biter, if you haven't seen it): http://www.youtube.com/v/d1MPe5hJZKE&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0 There are many ways to draw in both SCI and SCII. Just because a draw is somewhat more likely when facing a Terran player doesn't mean that we need to get rid of the mechanic. It's not like Terrans can auto-draw a game whenever they wish. They need to make you unable to produce air units, which is, in its own right, no easy feat. If anything, it adds strategic depth to the game, since you need to be careful not to lose all air units if you are going to base trade with a Terran. This game would still have been possible with 10 minutes of lift time fuel; hell it would have made the factory vs goon micro even more interesting as the game progressed, as the Terran might have had to land for a bit to recharge. It's not asking for the world here. If, in that same game the Terran had nothing but that factory left, and the Protoss had 30 goons around the perimeter of a sweet spot where the factory is safe, who would you call that game in favour of? How fun would that game be to watch? Would it really be fair to call that a draw? This dude's got it: On May 10 2010 05:13 Eiii wrote: There's completely nothing wrong with the terran's ability to lift and run their buildings. That's fine. The problem is that even if they have no possible way back into the game they can just remain there, floating around and trying to outlast their opponent. In nony's case, if he constantly scouted to ensure that the T hadn't landed anywhere-- which he did-- T has literally no way to win the game. If T moves to reestablish a base, he loses and Protoss wins. In a game where both players are playing to win, that's the only possible outcome. Why call this scenario a draw? Why must the game end simply because one player refuses to make a move? He certainly doesn't have to make a move, but why does this scenario exist in a truly competitive RTS? Stalemates in chess occur through expert evasion of checkmate on the side of the losing player, not because he decides he doesn't want to make the final move that will lead to his checkmate. Think of the fuel on a Terran building as the timer for making a move in chess. 5 or 10 minutes is certainly more than reasonable. ----------- And while I'm at this... other objections On May 09 2010 14:44 Fen wrote: If you cant kill your opponent for any reason that does not involve someone breaking the rules, then you do NOT deserve a win This is true for any game, and breaks down into "If you cannot win the game within the existing conditions, you cannot win the game" We're suggesting that the conditions are worth revising. Terran lifting is not overpowered, it is a racial advantage which very rarely allows the terran to defend against a loss Overpowered? No. Potential for abuse? Yes. It's a racial advantage imbued to the player at no cost (cost, such as having to tech to air), that allows them to stall the game indefinitely. By adding draws, we can stop stalemate situations from being a competition of who is the most stubborn In a standoff between a zealot+cannon+pylon vs a DT+pylon, both players have the potential to win, and either making a move will result in a loss. This is reasonable grounds for a draw. In a Terran lift off scenario, there is only one move that can be made, and that results in a loss for the Terran; there is absolutely no potential for him to win here. That a scenario exists where a player can drag out the game indefinitely means something is broken. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On May 08 2010 10:41 Zealot Lord wrote: ok maybe a draw - but personally in my own view I don't see why it should be a draw if one side has units and the other side doesn't? I wasn't aware you won the game if the other person had no units. | ||
|
Matrijs
United States147 Posts
On May 10 2010 07:08 HawaiianPig wrote: Why call this scenario a draw? Why must the game end simply because one player refuses to make a move? He certainly doesn't have to make a move, but why does this scenario exist in a truly competitive RTS? Stalemates in chess occur through expert evasion of checkmate on the side of the losing player, not because he decides he doesn't want to make the final move that will lead to his checkmate. Two obvious rejoinders: stalemates often don't occur by expert evasion of checkmate. They often occur because of a mistake by a player with an otherwise winning advantage. Sound familiar? Second, stalemate IS a refusal by the losing player to make the final move that would lead to checkmate. In chess, the game does not force you to move your King into check. If your only move is to put your King into check, the game becomes a draw. By analogy, in Starcraft 2, the game does not force you to move your buildings (your King) into attacking range of your opponent's units (into check). So, naturally, if your only move is to move your buildings into attacking range of your opponent's units, the game should be a draw. Finally, your proposed solution does not eliminate draws of this kind. On Scrap Station, Lost Temple, and Kulas Ravine, it's possible to land your building in a place where the Protoss's ground units either can't see to hit it (Kulas Ravine) or can't reach it at all (Scrap Station, Lost Temple). Fuel for buildings won't do anything to stop players from landing their buildings out of reach. The real solution for this problem is to institute a 15 minute draw rule. If no resources are mined and no units take damage for 15 minutes, the game ends in a draw. Neither player has managed to achieve the game's objective, and neither player has any remaining ability to move toward that objective. | ||
|
HawaiianPig
Canada5155 Posts
On May 10 2010 07:39 Matrijs wrote: Two obvious rejoinders: stalemates often don't occur by expert evasion of checkmate. They often occur because of a mistake by a player with an otherwise winning advantage. Sound familiar? Second, stalemate IS a refusal by the losing player to make the final move that would lead to checkmate. In chess, the game does not force you to move your King into check. If your only move is to put your King into check, the game becomes a draw. By analogy, in Starcraft 2, the game does not force you to move your buildings (your King) into attacking range of your opponent's units (into check). So, naturally, if your only move is to move your buildings into attacking range of your opponent's units, the game should be a draw. Hmm, this is true, and chess was probably a bad example. You may note in an earlier post, that I mentioned that a hypothetical version of Starcraft, where players of all races have this ability to lift and force a draw, would be balanced. The analogy breaks down because Starcraft is a game where opponents have widely varying features. In chess, any player can find themselves in this situation, but in Starcraft, only the Terran can force a draw in this manner (where the only next move is into a loss). Finally, your proposed solution does not eliminate draws of this kind. On Scrap Station, Lost Temple, and Kulas Ravine, it's possible to land your building in a place where the Protoss's ground units either can't see to hit it (Kulas Ravine) or can't reach it at all (Scrap Station, Lost Temple). Fuel for buildings won't do anything to stop players from landing their buildings out of reach. This is also true, but fuel would at least alleviate one version of this type of standoff. The real solution for this problem is to institute a 15 minute draw rule. If no resources are mined and no units take damage for 15 minutes, the game ends in a draw. Neither player has managed to achieve the game's objective, and neither player has any remaining ability to move toward that objective. I do agree with this, as it would solve a host of other stalemates where both players have the potential to win and lose; however, I find that the Terran lift-off standoff is the only situation I can think of where a player's only option is to sit stubbornly or lose. | ||
|
ccou
United States681 Posts
On May 10 2010 05:13 Eiii wrote: I honestly don't understand how so many people can completely miss the point. This is absolutely not a balance issue. Normal games would still proceed exactly as they always have. The biggest change this would make would be that if you wanted to use a floating building as a scout long-term, you'd have to find the APM to land it and lift it off once every five to ten minutes or so, to make sure it doesn't run out of fuel and crash. There's completely nothing wrong with the terran's ability to lift and run their buildings. That's fine. The problem is that even if they have no possible way back into the game they can just remain there, floating around and trying to outlast their opponent. In nony's case, if he constantly scouted to ensure that the T hadn't landed anywhere-- which he did-- T has literally no way to win the game. If T moves to reestablish a base, he loses and protoss wins. In a game where both players are playing to win, that's the only possible outcome. Should make it so that floating T buildings don't count towards victory conditions. If T only has lifted buildings, that counts as a loss. If T has no supply depots, refineries, etc. AND is so behind, he's forced to lift all his buildings, he deserves to lose. With this, Ts don't even need to land their scouting buildings. | ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
Yes, this is a possibility indeed but I think changing the "out of bounds" areas in future maps will fix a lot of the problem. Once Terran starts to mass lift buildings, get any kind of flying attack unit. Anyway you can. edit: Making flying buildings count as Units and not Buildings. Along with fixing the vast "out of bounds" should fix a 99% of these. Good Thinking. | ||
|
ccou
United States681 Posts
| ||
|
Matrijs
United States147 Posts
On May 10 2010 08:07 HawaiianPig wrote: I find that the Terran lift-off standoff is the only situation I can think of where a player's only option is to sit stubbornly or lose. Some other such scenarios: 1) Zerg player has a mutalisk, a non-hatchery building, and a creep tumor to keep the building alive. Protoss player has a zealot, a pylon, and a photon cannon. The protoss player can't move out to attack because the mutalisk will kill the zealot, and the mutalisk can't kill the photon cannon or the pylon. 2) Protoss player has a zealot and a pylon. Zerg player has two speed zerglings and a bunch of buildings, but cannot rebuild. Neither player can attack the other. The zealot can't even go any significant distance away from the pylon to chase a zergling because the other one will attack the pylon. I could think of plenty more. You might object that these seem rare and unlikely to occur in a real game. My response would be that I play mainly Terran, have played at least a hundred games, and have never seen a floating building stalemate, nor been in a situation where I could have created one. Edit: the point I'm trying to make here is that Terran liftoff is fine in its current form, and should not be changed. The problem is that Starcraft 2 doesn't have a way to deal with stalemate situations. That problem exists for all races and all matchups, not just Terran vs. Protoss. The obvious solution is to create a draw mechanic when some long period of time has elapsed without significant changes in the situation. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
I have never really ever played Terran in SC1 or SC2 as a laddering race. It's just a mechanic of their race. It's quite clear that you're supposed to kill all your opponent's bulidings to win. If you can't, then you shouldn't get a win just because you won on the ground. In essence, he took out all your air capabilities to ensure he *wouldn't* lose. How is this any different than a Terran player floating his CC to an island and rebuliding on the island and coming back? How is that fair - a Zerg player can't lift his hatch and move it to an island and rebuild!!! | ||
|
HawaiianPig
Canada5155 Posts
On May 10 2010 08:17 Matrijs wrote: Some other such scenarios: 1) Zerg player has a mutalisk, a non-hatchery building, and a creep tumor to keep the building alive. Protoss player has a zealot, a pylon, and a photon cannon. The protoss player can't move out to attack because the mutalisk will kill the zealot, and the mutalisk can't kill the photon cannon or the pylon. 2) Protoss player has a zealot and a pylon. Zerg player has two speed zerglings and a bunch of buildings, but cannot rebuild. Neither player can attack the other. The zealot can't even go any significant distance away from the pylon to chase a zergling because the other one will attack the pylon. I could think of plenty more. You might object that these seem rare and unlikely to occur in a real game. My response would be that I play mainly Terran, have played at least a hundred games, and have never seen a floating building stalemate, nor been in a situation where I could have created one. That's the thing, both players on each side of these scenarios could win in some way, even if it's the result of the opposing player moving into a loss. With a Terran liftoff, only the Terran is the one who can move into loss, the other player can only wait. Simply put, scenarios above involve: Player A: Moves into loss OR waits for win. Player B: Moves into loss OR waits for win. (And of course, it may very well be possible for these players to move into a win by some miracle of micro, but it's still possible) And the Terran Lift-Off: Player A: Moves into loss OR waits for win. Player B: Waits for win. There is absolutely no potential for a win in this situation for the Terran, only loss. On May 10 2010 08:19 FabledIntegral wrote: I completely think that if you don't have any means to kill a Terran's floating building, then you should lose. End of story. I have never really ever played Terran in SC1 or SC2 as a laddering race. It's just a mechanic of their race. It's quite clear that you're supposed to kill all your opponent's bulidings to win. If you can't, then you shouldn't get a win just because you won on the ground. In essence, he took out all your air capabilities to ensure he *wouldn't* lose. How is this any different than a Terran player floating his CC to an island and rebuliding on the island and coming back? How is that fair - a Zerg player can't lift his hatch and move it to an island and rebuild!!! We're starting to rehash here, why must the opponent of the Terran be forced to tech to air while the Terran himself doesn't have to? (Saying "because it's always been that way" is really not a valid argument). What if Protoss Nexuses were cloaked from the beginning, would it be fair for players to have to tech to detection for building elims? | ||
|
Falling
Canada11381 Posts
On May 10 2010 08:17 Matrijs wrote: Some other such scenarios: 1) Zerg player has a mutalisk, a non-hatchery building, and a creep tumor to keep the building alive. Protoss player has a zealot, a pylon, and a photon cannon. The protoss player can't move out to attack because the mutalisk will kill the zealot, and the mutalisk can't kill the photon cannon or the pylon. 2) Protoss player has a zealot and a pylon. Zerg player has two speed zerglings and a bunch of buildings, but cannot rebuild. Neither player can attack the other. The zealot can't even go any significant distance away from the pylon to chase a zergling because the other one will attack the pylon. I could think of plenty more. You might object that these seem rare and unlikely to occur in a real game. My response would be that I play mainly Terran, have played at least a hundred games, and have never seen a floating building stalemate, nor been in a situation where I could have created one. Edit: the point I'm trying to make here is that Terran liftoff is fine in its current form, and should not be changed. The problem is that Starcraft 2 doesn't have a way to deal with stalemate situations. That problem exists for all races and all matchups, not just Terran vs. Protoss. The obvious solution is to create a draw mechanic when some long period of time has elapsed without significant changes in the situation. Not only are your scenarios rare, they are very specific (specified probability?). All that is required in the Terran situation is their opponents have no ability to go air/ rebuild. You could have any combo of zealots, stalkers, sentries, immortals, probes, templars, etc and the result is the same. Plus both players have the theoretical means to attack the other. Terran situation does not. But maybe I'll agree with FabledIntegral's idea  Doesn't matter if you have a hundred stalkers / hydralisks left over. If you can't catch the Terran Command Center in the corner, you lose. | ||
|
Matrijs
United States147 Posts
On May 10 2010 08:23 HawaiianPig wrote: That's the thing, both players on each side of these scenarios could win in some way, even if it's the result of the opposing player moving into a loss. With a Terran liftoff, only the Terran is the one who can move into loss, the other player can only wait. Simply put, scenarios above involve: Player A: Moves into loss OR waits for win. Player B: Moves into loss OR waits for win. (And of course, it may very well be possible for these players to move into a win by some miracle of micro, but it's still possible) And the Terran Lift-Off: Player A: Moves into loss OR waits for win. Player B: Waits for win. There is absolutely no potential for a win in this situation for the Terran, only loss. Ok. I can think of a PvZ scenario that meets those criteria: Zerg player has a spore crawler and an overlord vomiting creep. Protoss player has a pylon and a photon cannon. Player A (Zerg): Moves into loss OR waits for win. He could move his spore crawler on the overlord's carpet of creep, into the Protoss player's cannon. Of course, that would be incredibly stupid, just like a Terran player flying his last remaining building into the embrace of the Protoss army would be. Player B (Protoss): Waits for win. He can't move anything, he can only wait for the Zerg to do something stupid, like sacrifice his last building. | ||
|
Niji87
United States112 Posts
There are too many different scenario's where a draw can be forced. Terran buildings are not the only case. Not even remotely close to the only case. The other matter is just that some players are really stupid, annoying, or slow. There's nothing wrong with giving those players and their respective matches a bump in activity. By implementing a force quit, players who have the potential to do something and want a win... will. Players who do not have the ability to do anything will simply have their match ended in a not purely mind****ing amount of time, so that people don't go crazy. I would honestly prefer 8 minutes, as I believe 8 minutes is long enough to set up an Island expo and make a unit that can deal damage to your opponent, regardless of race. At the very least, if you can mine, you should be able to make at least one trip to collect minerals in that time period. Any more than 10 would be pointlessly stupid. I really don't care for an Offer Draw button, as there's no reason to accept a draw if you have a little patience. Without a way for the game engine to force the draw, you're left with the same scenario as right now (concerning BM players, especially). Why should I accept the draw if I can just outwait your patience and make you leave, thus earning a win? An Offer Draw button would be nice for those players that realize it's a draw and want to move on, but that's about it. You'd have to make sure it's implemented in a way that it doesn't impede gameplay when a draw is offered, of course. Fuel is a dumb idea. Stop trying to nerf mechanics that have existed for 12 years. Especially since this isn't the only way to cause a draw by attrition. | ||
| ||
